Dilemma with a transgender patient

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabrielle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My suggestion would be this:
  1. avoid gender pronouns as much as possible. Use “the patient” as much as possible
  2. when addressing the patient by name, use whatever name is they prefer. Think of it as no different that a nick name. If someone named David asks you to call him “Bubba,” would you do it? Or would you insist on calling him "David’? (I used that example because I actually do know a David who goes by “Bubba”).
  3. pray for your patient as much as possible.
I hope this helps.

God bless
 
o_mlly said:
God does not make mistakes
Click to expand...
The view that disorders one agrees with are caused by nature while those one cannot accept are caused by God (which QED cannot be a disorder and must be psychotic) would itself be a disordered way of thinking I suggest 😀.
 
Usagi said:
This right here is why you do not misgender trans people, whatever commitment to “the truth” you may think you’re exhibiting:
Click to expand...
If you read my several posts (one or more deleted at someone’s request ?) I wrote that in charity one does not antagonize another suggesting that careful pronoun selection in the context of nurse to patient seems workable.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth (1 Cor 4-6).
 
Sophie111 said:
The view that disorders one agrees with are caused by nature while those one cannot accept are caused by God (which QED cannot be a disorder and must be psychotic) would itself be a disordered way of thinking I suggest
Click to expand...
First, if by “nature” you mean God then you are wrong. God is not the cause of disorders. Secondly, one does not accept or reject disorders, they simply are as a result of Original Sin. However, our free will allows us to act out or not act out our particular disorders. By accepting His grace, we can overcome our disordered feelings.
 
But you’re mistaken in your thinking to conclude that it’s disagreement that defines disorder.

Nature defines disorder, whether we agree with it or not.

An essentially infertile coupling is one that goes against the natural order, making it thus disORDERED, not ordered to its purpose defined by its nature.

A hetero married couple who happen to be infertile find out about that AFTER they are married! Their intercourse is ordered to their nature.

This is called “accidental” infertility, to differentiate it from ESSENTIAL (in the essence and nature of the couplers) infertile.

Truth exists outside of us.
 
Last edited:
KyPerson said:
Here in the south most of the nurses call men and women who are older sweetie or dear. I don’t know where you are, but that might be a solution. And I agree, pray for him.
Click to expand...
And don’t forget “honey.” Another endearing term for the elderly. I witnessed that a lot when Mama was in rehab after her surgery.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Sophie111:
The view that disorders one agrees with are caused by nature while those one cannot accept are caused by God (which QED cannot be a disorder and must be psychotic) would itself be a disordered way of thinking I suggest
Click to expand...
First, if by “nature” you mean God then you are wrong. God is not the cause of disorders. Secondly, one does not accept or reject disorders, they simply are as a result of Original Sin. However, our free will allows us to act out or not act out our particular disorders. By accepting His grace, we can overcome our disordered feelings.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but if you cannot understand or agree with the commonly accepted findings of medicine (even by catholic professionals) on the possible biological basis of such gender/sex disorders, or basic theology and the difference between Nature and God in human reproduction then further converse with you is not possible.

The disorder in question is possibly a nature caused mismatch between the sex of the brain and the sex of the body. It is not psychotic to posit this disorder can happen…it is still an open medical question…as is the etiology of homosexual feelings.

It is therefore not necessarily pyschotic for a person to claim this mismatch from birth.
Nor is it sinful or psychotic for such a person to ease their perpetual discomfort by adopting a female public name even if they are morphologically male.

We get it that it makes you personally very uncomfortable to have to consider these possibilities let alone help them ease their disorder that they cannot escape. You can escape your discomfort simply by not coming to this thread at any time.

But being a Christian and all maybe you would want to make a few sacrifices for your fellow man (like calling a male by their chosen female name) especially if you are a caring nurse and they are terminal.

Then again maybe not - just tell others they are psychotic and use careful impersonal pronouns to relieve your own discomfort…because calling such a person by their chosen female name would be to deceive which is non Christian.

Theres as lot to be said for “consistency is the refuge of the weak”.
Wise Christians know when to be weak and when to be strong 😉.
Such “deception” is not deception, it is Christian charity if not justice.

Personally I learnt long ago that a Christian is a person not chained to rigid thinking or cultural stereotypes or unbreakable universals. We see persons not propoganda. We know when the Spirit calls and the time is right to walk upstream even if it looks wrong to others and maybe even to parts of ourselves. Afterwards we know if it was the Holy Spirit or stupidity. Yet some Christians never take the risk but hide behind rigidity. And the Holy Spirit weeps.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
But you’re mistaken in your thinking to conclude that it’s disagreement that defines disorder.
Click to expand...
And where did you mistakenly interpret me saying that?
If medical professionals are split over something then it is not unreasonable to take either side is the most I implied as far as I know.
Why is that a problem for you?
 
It’s not a matter of opinions of biologists or God-save-us pscyhologists.
It’s a matter of moral law.

We are called to perfection.

I always laugh at silly people who point to some supposedly homosexual snail as if that has any bearing at all on humans, who are made in the image of God (that is, we have a will and an intellect).
 
Being transgendered is not sinful.

A dying person will commit no new sin lying in a hospital bed.

God created them “male and female”, not “him and her”. Male and female denote fundemental attributes of a human soul. Pronouns, however, have no moral significance.

There is no dilemma in treating a dying man with respect.
 
I think the problem is more on how this kindness should be expressed.
 
Last edited:
The name the patient was given by his parents at birth. Unless the person legally changed his name to the female name, there is no reason not to use the patient’s real name.
 
Then he should just be referred to as a patient. Anyways he can’t even talk or has problems speaking so it probably wouldn’t even be addressed to him.
 
Last edited:
I don’t really don’t see the point of that and “you” is an easy substitution when you adress them.
 
Depending on whether or not he can respond or not it just doesn’t have a purpose, except maybe for idle chatter and words of comfort, but using pronouns or names is something that can easily be avoided.
 
Yes, and the kindness is to refer to the person by the name his parents gave him at birth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top